Problem powernow an Athlon 2600+ XP[solved]

Problem powernow an Athlon 2600+ XP[solved]

[Forcarlo]

I have compiled powernow built-in in mm-sources-2.6.6-rc5 and I add
"powernow_k7.powernow_acpi_force=1", "powernow_k7.acpi_force=1" don't work.
Now I get 796,1 Mhz as a minimum freq instead of 1393 Mhz.

Re: Problem powernow an Athlon 2600+ XP[solved]

[Bruno Ducrot]

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:42:38PM +0200, Forcarlo wrote:
> I have compiled powernow built-in in mm-sources-2.6.6-rc5 and I add
> "powernow_k7.powernow_acpi_force=1", "powernow_k7.acpi_force=1" don't work.
> Now I get 796,1 Mhz as a minimum freq instead of 1393 Mhz.
> 

You can fix this permanently if you send an output of dmidecode
(without the serial numbers, of course), or better create a
patch against linux-2.6/arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c

Something like this:


--- linux-2.6/arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c	2004/05/27 09:21:17	1.1
+++ linux-2.6/arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c	2004/05/27 09:22:56
@@ -875,6 +875,12 @@ static __initdata struct dmi_blacklist d
 			NO_MATCH, NO_MATCH,
 			} },
 
+	{ acer_cpufreq_pst, "Foo", {
+			MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Bar"),
+			MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "Baz"),
+			NO_MATCH, NO_MATCH,
+			} },
+
 #ifdef	CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT
 	/*
 	 * If your system is blacklisted here, but you find that acpi=force



Of course, that's _only_ an example.  The only thing that shall not
being modified is 'acer_cpufreq_pst'.

Cheers,

-- 
Bruno Ducrot

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.

Re: Problem powernow an Athlon 2600+ XP[solved]

[Dominik Brodowski]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:28:38AM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:42:38PM +0200, Forcarlo wrote:
> > "powernow_k7.powernow_acpi_force=1", "powernow_k7.acpi_force=1" don't work.

BTW, how about avoiding the double "powernow" in the module parameter? The
description
MODULE_PARM_DESC(acpi_force, "Force ACPI to be used");

also only mentions "acpi_force" instead of "powernow_acpi_force".

	Dominik

Re: Problem powernow an Athlon 2600+ XP[solved]

[Bruno Ducrot]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:39:42AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:28:38AM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:42:38PM +0200, Forcarlo wrote:
> > > "powernow_k7.powernow_acpi_force=1", "powernow_k7.acpi_force=1" don't work.
> 
> BTW, how about avoiding the double "powernow" in the module parameter? The
> description
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(acpi_force, "Force ACPI to be used");
> 
> also only mentions "acpi_force" instead of "powernow_acpi_force".

You are indeed correct..

--- arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c	2004/05/19 15:50:50	1.1
+++ arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c	2004/05/27 10:25:23
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@
  * configuration purpose.
  */
 
-static int powernow_acpi_force;
+static int acpi_force;
 
 static struct cpufreq_frequency_table *powernow_table;
 
@@ -558,7 +558,7 @@
 	}
 	dprintk(KERN_INFO PFX "FSB: %3d.%03d MHz\n", fsb/1000, fsb%1000);
 
-	if ((dmi_broken & BROKEN_CPUFREQ) || powernow_acpi_force) {
+	if ((dmi_broken & BROKEN_CPUFREQ) || acpi_force) {
 		printk (KERN_INFO PFX "PSB/PST known to be broken.  Trying ACPI instead\n");
 		result = powernow_acpi_init();
 	} else {
@@ -638,7 +638,7 @@
 		kfree(powernow_table);
 }
 
-module_param(powernow_acpi_force,  int, 0444);
+module_param(acpi_force,  int, 0444);
 
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(acpi_force, "Force ACPI to be used");
 


-- 
Bruno Ducrot

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.

Re: Problem powernow an Athlon 2600+ XP[solved]

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 12:28:05PM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
 > On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:39:42AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
 > > On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:28:38AM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
 > > > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:42:38PM +0200, Forcarlo wrote:
 > > > > "powernow_k7.powernow_acpi_force=1", "powernow_k7.acpi_force=1" don't work.
 > > 
 > > BTW, how about avoiding the double "powernow" in the module parameter? The
 > > description
 > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(acpi_force, "Force ACPI to be used");
 > > 
 > > also only mentions "acpi_force" instead of "powernow_acpi_force".
 > 
 > You are indeed correct..

Applied, thanks.

		Dave